219 / 262
Finance Acts. Every year, for the past few years he has
published this
Outlines of Irish Taxation
which is a
most useful summary of Irish income tax. This booklet
is invaluable to the practitioner who wishes to get a
quick reply on points of taxation law without delving
deeply into the Finance Acts.
Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law. 1972. Prepared
under the auspices of the Faculty of Law in the Univer-
sity of Oxford and the British Institute of International
and Comparative Law, edited by Professor H. W. R.
Wade and Harold Brown; 8vo; pp. Ixxxvi, 705; Lon-
don, Butterworths, 1973; £15.50.
The pattern of this annual survey is now well estab-
lished, and the general editors have got experts to write
on each of the twenty-one subjects covered : Funda-
mental Rights (Dr. Yardley); Criminal Law (Mr. Hey-
don); Trusts (Mr. Davies); Labour Law (Paul O'Hig-
gins); International Law (Dr. Brownlie); etc. As in pre-
vious years all the most important cases on a particular
subject, whether in Britain, Ireland, or the Common-
wealth are mentioned at least in a footnote. In the
result this is the most comprehensive survey, and the
authority and erudition of each contributor is unques-
tionable. There is a useful paragraph on the Livestock
Marts Act case, but it seems strange that, despite the
Constitution, Ireland is listed in the Index as "Eire".
Those who wish to follow the trend of judicial deci-
sions in any of the subjects covered by the experts could
not do better than to study it in this massive volume.
Cross (Rupert) and Asterley Jones
(P.)
—Cases on
Criminal Law. Fifth edition; 8vo; pp. xxxiv, 391;
London, Butterworth, 1973; £2.60 (paperback).
The merits of the fourth edition of this book were
reviewed in the July-August 1973
Gazette,
at page 169.
In this edition, thirty
r
six new cases have been inserted,
and thirty-one old cases deleted, particularly relating
to reason, criminal libel and perjury. Amongst the
inclusions are (1)
Mohan v R.
(1967) 2 All E.R. 58,
where it was held that two persons may be convicted of
aiding and abetting each other; (2)
R. v Mclnnes
(1971)
3 All E.R. 295, relating to self-defence, manslaughter
and murder; (3)
Phillips v R.
(1969) 2 A.C. 130, relat-
ing to what the jury must consider when provocation is
pleaded in answer to a charge of murder; and (4)
Cray v Barr
(1971) 2 All E.R. 949, where it was held
that
mens rea
was necessary in the case of all forms of
manslaughter. This new edition has been edited with
the care and excellence we can expect from these
learned authors of our profession.
Press not critical enough-Judge
The retiring President of the Circuit Court, Mr. Justice
Barra O Briain, said last Friday—his final appearance
on the Bench in Limerick—that generally speaking the
press in Ireland had been far too timid and not nearly
critical enough in its judgment on the courts of the
country.
Insofar as this comment relates to critical assessment
of the effects of judgments, it is probably true that there
is more room for editorial appraisement than has been
generally used. But this is obviously an area where
editors must walk warily.
An article designed to show significant differences in
sentencing policy as between judges would not be in
contempt of court—but the writer would need to know
all relevant information, including the accused's record
as read to the sentencing judge, family circumstances,
etc. Comment based on partial information would be
very risky indeed.
There is certainly room for comment on the effects of
judgments in any branch of the law but with one
proviso : as the law stands such comment should wait
until the time for appealing the decision has passed,
otherwise any comment might be seen as pre-judging
the issues on appeal and hence be in contempt of the
appeal court. Often once the appeal time has elapsed,
the newsworthiness of a case has disappeared too.
Contempt of Court
Another point is that the law of contempt of court is
vague : even if it were crystal clear its exercise is still at
the discretion of the judges concerned who, naturally,
differ as any human beings differ.
To illustrate the general vagueness of this field of law
the recent House of Lords decisions in the Sunday Times
case is a good example. It now appears that in England
fair and temperate pressure on a party in litigation to
settle out of court would not be contempt of court. If
this is true, it is a big change in the law : again, would
this ruling be followed in this country? The House of
Lords decisions are read here as persuasive but not
binding authorities.
There are a number of Irish cases where editors have
been convicted of contempt for publishing abusive
material about the courts. The distinction here should
be clear enough. Equally, of course, anything calculated
to sway the minds of a potential juror cannot be used.
But once a judgment has been given and the time for
appeal is passed there is room for assessment, and
adverse criticism, of the decision.
The Irish Times
(30 July 1973)
216